The Case for Heads: Buffer for Cultural Differences
In stakeholder discussions with my classes and my clients, we often delve into cross-cultural dimensions that can reflect in different values and motivations. Doing my undergrad in business in the early 90s, cross-cultural management pretty much meant dealing with Japan. Now, in this country – and specifically in supply chain – you likely encounter people from different cultural upbringings several times a day.

To deal with cross-cultural issues, I always ask those with firsthand experiences to share their insight. It is safer to address some prickly stereotypes from the “inside.” This particular dimension of in-group/out-group dynamics creates an opportunity to buffer cultural disconnects (including clashing corporate cultures) by involving someone who can see both sides, and, perhaps more importantly, is seen to be able to see both sides.

Call them “agents” or buffers, due to experience of circumstance, using people in this way can go a long way to smoothing some natural tensions, as well as offering translations, including when “maybe” really means “no,” as can be the case with the Japanese culture.

The Case for Tails: Fight Your Own Fight
One of the case studies that I used this summer in my negotiation class involved a classic showdown between a beleaguered airline and its union. In a recent discussion, a student, who was sitting with me to “negotiate” a portion of the final grade, reiterated his position that management should have used a third-party mediator. The rationale being: no emotions, just facts. It really is simple, or at least was in the student’s mind.

If you have ever been “buffered” in this way, it can actually set off an entire new range of emotions that reflect frustration in not being able to make a case directly and suspicion that the “mediator” (or agent) will not accurately reflect your interests. I wonder, in retrospect, how this student would have reacted if I had appointed a third party to hear his case for an improved grade.

Many times you have to “fight your own fights,” if not for control of the situation then to establish yourself for this and future interactions. Relationships matter.

So what?

The interpersonal side of collaboration can be exceedingly complex. That said, there are some instances where the decisions are clear (e.g., work through someone or address a situation directly). Context can give you an idea, but rarely do we get certainty. Experimenting and taking chances (coin tossing?) can create situations that you can reflect upon and learn from.

Happy reflecting!

First up are M. Houle’s interests, including the overriding objective of the school. (e.g. promote constructive educational dialogue). Determining the latter will be a conversation given the published University “mission” statement, which is not clear enough to be workable.

Taking the overall goal into account with other interests (e.g. increase Ottawa U’s global reputation: mission accomplished on that one!) M. Houle would ask himself if bringing Ann Coulter to the university serves his purposes without compromising the overall goal. (There are some serious assumptions made before ticking “yes” to this, but let’s make them.)

M. Houle them selects between different negotiation strategies based on (1 or X-axis) the importance of demonstrable outcomes, and (2 or y-axis) the importance of the ongoing relationship with the other party. This becomes a 2×2 grid, across the axes of “low” to “high” for each dimension; the strategies are AVOID (low and low), ACCOMMODATE (relationship trumps outcome), COMPETE (outcome trumps relationship) and COLLABORATE (high and high). To oversimplify, we will call the single demonstrable outcome “a safe campus event” and the relationship is, obviously, with Ann Coulter and by association.

By sending his warning letter to Ann Coulter, M. Houle was executing on a COMPETITIVE strategy, which marks a strategic error. If you can’t have a safe event with her there, don’t invite her (AVOID). If you want to try to work with her to ensure the discourse remains constructive and educational, give her a phone call: dialogue is conducive–and necessary–to collaboration. Competitive tactics (e.g. strongly worded and public letters) invite retribution. Find her response on her blog, in public, for all to see.

Oh, the difference made by little things. Had M. Houle engaged Ms. Coulter in private dialogue and raised his concerns and hopes for, for example, a safe event, this would play out differently and much more positively for the University. Had she not been interested in this kind of discussion and responded in a competitive/combative manner, he could move to “AVOID” and be done with it.

We will never know how receptive Ms. Coulter would have been to such a phone call prior to the event. I wonder if such conversations took place in Calgary. We can’t know, because such discussions are kept necessarily informal and non-public, which is where such collaboration sometimes has it’s best chance.

In my role as a trainer/instructor, I have an opportunity to instill the importance of “walking the talk” when engaging hostile stakeholder groups, or even members of a cross-functional team. Most of the time clients, students and attendees can’t tell if I actually walk my talk. (Recall the cynical adage: If you can’t do, teach.)

Note: A colleague of mine, who also teaches negotiations found a neat way around the issue: “It’s not how good a negotiator I am; it’s how good are you after I have taught you.”

There are two situations where those watching, I think, have an opportunity to really assess my walk-to-talk ratio.
1 – Training presentation skills: Similar to writing a book on writing skills, leading a training session on “presenting” always makes me feel naked. During one such session, I found the projector frozen (having spent a December night in the trunk of a car). I am certain the audience was quietly thinking, “Wow! What is he going to do now?” and expecting me to have the right answer, (which is get on with the content; you will find the projector works fine once it is warmed up!)
2 – Negotiating grades for a Negotiation class: Students have an option to analyze and strategize their negotiation with me for a final mark in my MBA course. I don’t feel as naked in these situations because of the obvious power imbalance.
Either of these situations provides clear opportunities to spot the “do as I say, not as I do” moments. I can’t say that I have been called out much at all. One gentleman approached me after a training session with a hypocrisy sighting: “You told us you tend to ‘beg forgiveness over ask permission,’ but then you kept asking us if it was OK to move on.”
Hmmm. Needless to say, no “participation” marks were on the line this time.
When under scrutiny, I think that credibility can become very solid very quickly if the talk and walk line up. Authenticity is a strong asset in managing and leading change from any level of an organization. I firmly believe that those under the most scrutiny (from strong out-group camps), have a fighting chance to gain/regain credibility when they “walk their talk” as much as possible. This means that if I am not flawless, I can’t hold you to a flawless standard… that would be hypocritical, which would make you cynical, which limits our ability to collaborate.
No one is bullet proof. It is far too difficult to fake it. Lead with your strengths, and find others to cover your weaknesses.

• Fall 2008 – York University unionized workers strike.

Note: Neither Schulich (business) or Osgoode (law) were affected directly. All appreciated the irony of crossing a picket line to teach a class on Negotiating.

• Winter 2009 – Auto sector woes, which were welcome in the fall, continue.

Note: There is also a nice little transit strike in Ottawa.

• Summer 2009 – Toronto City outdoor and daycare workers strike

Note: Toronto City Counsellor Karen Stintz guest shared perspectives on this in class this semester.

• Fall 2009 – Cable companies and TV broadcasters

Note: Just in time for Fall 2009, CRTC Chair Konrad Von Finckenstein chastised the disputing cable and broadcasting companies with:
“You need each other; I don’t understand why you can’t negotiate.”
A final report gift, just in time for Christmas.

• Winter 2010 – Community College Teachers vs. Management

Note: As an instructor at Humber I was able to vote in this one. Who on Earth thinks that teaching is a profession in which to get rich?!
The thread through all of these situations appears to be “reacting to a business model that’s under strain.” Whether its wage dissatisfaction or margin envy, those involved, who really do need each other, would do well to hear Von Finckenstein’s words.
Complex situations? Requiring new approaches? This will ring familiar to those working in supply chain. Collaboration is easy to talk about and, theoretically, we can see the opportunity for creating/protecting value. The work comes in effectively executing on that mindset to address real challenges.
The competitive reaction appears to be automatic, especially if we are taking away things that people have “always had” (e.g. banked sick days) or have come to expect (3 – 5% year-on-year wage increase). The rightful target for competitive behaviour is often outside this relationship.
This means that even though it makes perfect sense to implement your cost-saving initiative, if someone is losing something, expect some push back. Positioning energy toward understanding the problem (hopefully a shared problem) is the most effective interaction. No situation is too small for a strategic look, which could start conversations toward some fixes.

• what went wrong?
• how could it have been better?
• what should they learn for next time?

I always enjoy the perspectives and the biases that come out in the analysis. Likely because he shares my biases, I enjoyed Howard Levitt’s legal perspective on the situation in today’s National Post.

As an additional perspective, my MBA class (Negotiations) this week tried to deal with ethics as practically as possible. With the assistance of some readings, excersises and discussions, we arrived at some criteria that can help inform ethical decision making. (I don’t like to think that it always “depends;” there are some more biases for you!)  One of the criteria was “It is unethical to maximize your own interests with a disregard for shared interests.” You can argue the semantics of any of those words, but the point, as I see it, is look out for number one, but stay attentive to shared interests.

Under this criteria, in nature, a parasitic relationship becomes unethical if it threatens the survival of the host. Does that mean the Bernie Madoff was unethical because he failed to create a sustainable Ponzi scheme? Maybe. Remember, this is one of four criteria.

Do city workers violate this ethical code by holding out for, specifically, sick day banking and pay-back for half a year of sick days upon retirement? I think the answer is, “Yes.” The shared interest is in a sustainable system whereby reasonable tax revenues cover reasonable city services. As Mr. Levitt illustrates, the status quo union agreements have progressed to being unreasonable (evidence by the fact that you don’t see similar benefits in the private sector).

The checks and balances of the private sector are not perfect–and certainly do not guarantee ethical behaviour–but can help. Uncompetitive wage burdens were part of GM going bankrupt. Unions, workers and pensioners live with the consequences. Pushing a business to unsustainability is unethical if your plan is to continue working there (as it appeared to be for many workers) or to bank on retirement income from the company (as it appears for many pensioners).

If today’s City of Toronto workers are in it for anything other than short-term gains, they are not behaving ethically, I will suggest. Anyone who makes such a claim, better have a strong ethical leg to stand on (or had best make it on a blog whose readership is limited to like minds… we will see.)

You could tell me to lighten up, but I have a fundamental issue with this approach. I envision the conversation (because I have first-hand experience) between the parent and the child.

• Child: “I want to have sleep over for my birthday.”
• Parent: “Great. How many kids are you planning on inviting?”
• Child: “Let me see…. (verbal list of names each prompting a finger to extend). Twelve.”
• Parent: “You can’t have that many kids to sleep over.”

I can understand the motivation to sidestep a conflict/tempter tantrum. Such forks in the road exist. You can invite twelve people, OR you can have a sleepover. You can’t do both.

But hold on a second. In the spirit of Negotiating… What if we invite a large group of kids to the party, and then keep a select few back to sleepover. Is that not a good compromise? Out of the box, eh?

Not to make too much of a big deal out of this, but I think it is unhealthy to fail to select (or fail to make the child select) “one of the other” from the above options. If pushed to further explain, which I was, my argument extends to the quality of the first party. How much fun can it be if the “sleep-over group” has to keep suppress the “wink-wink-nudge-nudge” temptation of the after party? Isn’t there an inherent risk that the “go-home group” will learn about the after party and feel (rightfully so) like a second-tier friend?

This specific trade-off approaches an ethical question. Select between the two party streams OR do both and be deceitful to at least half of your “friends.” (This is all happening in the context on an ongoing conversation with some fellow Schulich faculty on ethics and decision making among business school students. E.G. Is it wrong to gain competitive advantage through exploiting a legal loophole?)

So, yes, you can “have your cake and sleepover, too.” You may find that this type of “compromise” ends up compromising the integrity of those involved. The risk-return will be an individual call, but I can certainly tell you I will take on a conflict with my child to avoid treading into ethically murky waters.

If everyone has it in for the CAW, as Lewenza claims (”[the Canadian Government is] interfering in our negotiations [with Chrysler), then he needs to fight back with some pretty powerful evidence. The fundamental premise of the “other side’s” argument is that CAW workers are paid much more than Toyota and Honda workers, so the wages need to come down to competitive levels.

Lewenza challenges that argument directly (although it is at the very end of the article; damn right-wing editors!). He says that “Canadian executives at Toyota and Honda have described many times their strategy of essentially matching wages, pensions and core benefits to those paid in CAW-represented facilities.” So, I guess, it is just a shell game, and CAW workers and workers at Toyota and Honda are ALREADY paid the same wages, right? If that is the case, then there must be another reason that Chrysler is so unable to compete. Such as, no one buys the cars. This is not good news for CAW workers in Chrysler facilities.

This situation is a clear example of an entity (CAW) or at least a person (Ken Lewenza) so heavy with history that they cannot shed a combative/competitive mindset that has no place in competitive industries where stakeholdes (including government) need to work together to beat the real competition. I feel sorry for the people who are being mislead so badly by Mr. Lewenza. This will be a powerful lesson for organized labour.

I am all about the “relationship” side of the business. There is a place for relationships in the Fiat/Chrysler landscape, and I think that Mr. Marchionne is familiar with the value of relationships, as well. I suspect, he has simply opted to put results first. If my guess is right, this is a strategic direction given that his company is operating in a fiercely competitive environment and cannot afford to make any concessions that are disproportionate to added value. I think that his shareholders (and business partners) would applaud that.

Relationships are absolutely necessary, but in some instances, it will have to be compromised. I think this is one of those situations. Maybe it is a dose of “tough love” to an entity who no longer has a competitive wage structure.

Would you really give back what you won?

Topping the list of “don’t even go there” would be the danger of setting a precedent: “they” will take more or give less in the future. I might, however, suggest that mutual interests over the long-term could prevail if these “winners” concede to the “losers” so that there is a bigger “win” (or smaller loss) for both parties.

In both instances there is a sustainability argument to be made. Many people in very different positions have a stake in both the City of Toronto and Chrysler (and other automotive entities) surviving, succeeding and flourishing. The competition in the auto sector better illustrates how the “take what you can” attitude is misplaced.

When the going is good you don’t notice (can handle?) an extra load, so a company/organization can carry more than its share. When competition ramps up to the extent where “placing near the top” is no longer good enough, everybody has a responsibility to work together to “win.” If winning the marathon really matters, non ones cares that you finished in the top ten while carrying your kids on your back.

Chrysler and company (including unionized workers) should be focussed on proving that the current problems are not due to producing cars no one wants. They will need to be unburdened to prove that point. Once proven, let them carry as much as they can. If they can’t live the balance of provide fair wages and remain competitive, they should not be in business. Workers need to look at “fair” in the context of the bigger picture.

And I would not be too concerned about the precedents. One of the few certainties today appears to be that we are living in “unprecedented times.” Desperate times may call for collaborative measures.

If you have read other posts of mine (or attended courses or training with me), you will know that Getting to Yes’ “Power, rights, interests” model is one that I am quick to reference. The idea being that Power and Rights approaches often get bogged down faster than approach that starts with the Interests (e.g. what do you want?). Could it be that part of the problem with Human Rights Tribunals is that middle word? How does Human Interest Tribunal sound to you?

What does the woman want? Probably a job, but it will not end there: respect, some flexibility, smoking breaks? Maybe she wants to work with nice people. It is worth asking the question. The prospective employer wants an employee who will do the job, and to stick around because interviewing and hiring are time consuming. They want someone reliable and responsible, maybe they need someone who is independent. They likely don’t need someone who is “perfect,” and, if they are like me, are very suspect of people who claim to be so.

When the woman describes her “perfect attendance” in the interview, she is certainly telling them what she thinks they want to hear, but she is not telling the truth.

NOTE: I would suggest that if anyone is 100% truthful in an interview, they won’t get the job. Similarly, if an employer is completely straight with prospective employees, offer acceptance will plummet. There is an expectation that both sides couch things that cannot be supported objectively (i.e. she is the most difficult person to deal with; don’t get him going on his tomato garden, etc.)

An employer does want to hire someone they can trust. If “perfect attendance” is claimed in an interview and later found to be overstated (e.g. false), why hire the person? Does that not demonstrate a lack of judgement? Not hiring someone because they smoke is discrimination, but I hope that the reasoning goes beyond that. Not hiring someone because they exaggerated inappropriately in an interview is entirely justified. I will be interested to see where this ends up.